Now that Christmas Bird Count season is over, compilers have been working to
wrap up the results for the continent-wide CBC database. This task includes
providing details for rare/unusual birds that were found during the counts.
Now that many CBC volunteers are using eBird checklists to record their
observations, they're often pointing compilers to their checklists, as a source
of details.
This is 100% reasonable -- no need to duplicate effort when you're already
providing similar information to your local eBird reviewer!
However I've noticed a few problems in early returns. Several basic bits of
information are often missing from eBird checklists, even if key field marks
are listed. These are all standard items for rare-bird reports, but perhaps
easy to overlook if your local eBird reviewer hasn't been asking for them on
more routine reports.
So .... if you used eBird to report a rare bird on a CBC this season, please
help your compiler by going back to make sure that you've covered these basics,
especially for reports that lack clear, diagnostic photo(s):
1. WHO SAW WHAT? Often 2 or more members of a field party will post linked
checklists with identical descriptions. It's useful to know if a bird was
seen/heard well by all members of the party, and/or if the description is the
result of discussions in the field, possibly reflecting a composite of
observations by different observers.
2. HOW WAS IT SEEN/HEARD? Was the bird 20 m away or 200 m away? Seen perched,
on the ground, or flying around? Viewed with naked eye, binoculars, or scope?
For 2 seconds or 2 minutes? Or if heard only, how many times was it heard, and
how well?
3. WHAT SIMILAR SPECIES WERE CONSIDERED? Sometimes this might be obvious from
the details given, but not always.
4. WHEN WAS THE DESCRIPTION WRITTEN OR EDITED? If a description was added after
discussion at the countdown, that's helpful to note. I've noticed that
descriptions also may change over time, presumably after a local eBird reviewer
raised questions about the original report.
I know this may sound like a lot of work, but for most of these items just a
brief note is sufficient, e.g. "Seen briefly in flight at ~150 m by observer X
who noted pale wingtips, then on ground in scope views at ~200 m for other
details noted, by all observers over several minutes."
Finally, for "continuing rarities" that were twitched on count day, it's OK to
point to prior descriptions that give more details. But in that case there
should be at least one solid description that's easy to find, from within a few
days before or after the count.
Thanks for the extra effort to help ensure quality of this long-running
citizen-science project, now in its 119th year!
--
Joel Geier
Oregon Regional CBC Editor
